Obama or McCain: Who’s Better for Healthcare Investors?

There’s no doubt that healthcare is one of the most important—and fastest-growing—components of the U.S. economy. The sheer size of the sector makes it impossible for investors to ignore. It’s a $2 trillion industry that, at least according to the latest demographic data from the federal government, ought to continue to grow well into the 21st century as the first wave of baby boomers enters retirement. Healthcare is so huge, in fact, that it really makes more sense to view it, at least from an investment perspective, as four subsectors: pharmaceutical companies, medical device makers, hospitals and biotechnology.

As we head into the home stretch of the presidential campaign season, the contest in November appears to be anyone’s game. In late August, the Gallup tracking poll showed both Obama and McCain taking—and then losing—front-runner status at least once. A statistically insignificant 1 percent—with Obama in the lead—separated the two candidates on August 27, the day before Obama was scheduled to receive the official nomination of his party. About the only thing we can be sure of at this point is that come January, there will be a new occupant taking up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For long-term investors in the healthcare space, a change of presidential administrations presents a myriad of challenges as well as opportunities. Different subsectors stand to benefit—and lose—depending on who wins in November.

Below, we review some of the principal planks in the Obama and McCain healthcare platforms and offer suggestions for ETF investors looking to position their portfolios ahead of the presidential election.

When it comes to healthcare policy, for instance, Obama and McCain both see problems with the current system, and the ways the candidates propose addressing them reveal much about the governing philosophy each would bring to the presidency.

There’s no question that the system of healthcare delivery in the U.S. is broken. The latest data from the Census Bureau indicates that the number of Americans without health insurance fell by 1 million in 2007. That’s the good news. The bad news is that 45.7 million of us still aren’t covered by a government- or employer-sponsored healthcare plan.

McCain would address the problem of access to healthcare by creating incentives for individuals and families to buy their own coverage, relieving the private sector of much of this burden. In addition, McCain proposes to improve efficiency by introducing “market discipline” to the healthcare sector. Under McCain’s plan, individuals and families who purchased their own health insurance would receive a tax credit of up to $5,000 to offset that cost. At the same time, McCain would remove the regulatory barriers that prevent consumers from shopping for coverage in a truly national marketplace. McCain’s plan reflects his belief that market discipline is the key to improving consumer choice and eliminating waste and inefficiency.

Obama’s plan, if implemented, would be more of a game-changer than McCain’s. Under his proposal, the government would fund a program to provide coverage for the 45.7 million people who aren’t currently enrolled in an employer- or government-sponsored healthcare plan. Unlike the Clinton-era proposal for universal coverage, however, Obama wouldn’t seek to dismantle the current private health insurance industry. Rather, the government-funded plan would exist side by side with private plans.

The implications for investors could be far-reaching. According to Obama’s campaign literature, the initial cost of covering uninsured Americans would be at least $70 billion a year—a conservative estimate, if the Massachusetts universal coverage plan implemented under former Governor Mitt Romney is any indication. If Obama manages to pull off his ambitious proposal, then the ETFs most likely to thrive would be those, like iShares Dow Jones U.S. Pharmaceuticals Index Fund (IHE) and the Dow Jones U.S. Healthcare Providers Index Fund (IHF), that cover the broad pharmaceutical sector and hospitals and other companies in the medical delivery sector.

Under McCain, ETFs that focus on the biotechnology and medical devices sectors would likely see the biggest gains. The Biotech SPDR (XBI) is the least expensive ETF in the biotechnology space, with a 0.35 percent expense ratio, and it has also been the best-performing biotech ETF over the past several months. The iShares Nasdaq Biotech Index Fund (IBB), with about 170 holdings, offers investors the broadest coverage. Among medical delivery funds, the iShares Dow Jones U.S. Medical Devices Index Fund (IHI) is among the best-capitalized (around $450 million in assets as of late August) and least expensive, with annual fees of 0.48 percent. Profits in the medical devices subsector of the vast healthcare complex have risen fairly steadily, regardless of which way the political winds happen to be blowing, and medical devices ETFs are likely to be reliable long-term plays regardless of which candidate prevails in the general election.

In the coming years, investors are likely to see some big changes not only in healthcare policy, but also in energy and tax policy. Presidents also exercise varying degrees of influence over education and defense spending, and they sit atop the vast federal regulatory apparatus. Among the many items on the next president’s to-do list: addressing the excesses in mortgage lending and in the financial markets that have left banks from Main Street to Wall Street struggling with mounting losses and tight credit markets.

Comments

[bearfund:]

You write that the "sheer size of the sector makes it impossible for investors to ignore" and then proceed to describe in broad terms political promises being made that could radically change the industry. No one can know whether these promises are meant seriously. No one can know whether they will be kept. No one can know who will be in a position to keep them. And no one can know whether some even more populist scheme will ultimately be proposed by the eventual winners.

So, sorry, I'm ignoring the sector, all $2T of it. I'm not short, I'm not long. I simply don't want any kind of exposure at all to this politically charged sector. I'd much rather gamble on horses than on politics; horses don't win the race by getting in front of a microphone and offering to take money out of winning bettors' pockets to pay the losers. They just have to be the fastest. In politics, anything can and usually does happen, and the better the outcome, the less likely it is to occur.

The one thing you can safely bet on is that the next administration will spend at least as much money as this one did and will have a much weaker economy from which to collect taxes. That means, radical new socialist programs or not, a whole lot more borrowing. McCain, Obama, whatever. Today's political climate favours whoever can believably promise the biggest raids on the Treasury. So the smart move is to short government paper. It's very hard to lose in this trade at current levels; if the economy improves, demand will slacken as money moves into other assets. If it does not, supply will march higher as foreign confidence erodes. And yields are at or near 50-year lows. Health care? No thanks. I'm sticking with the surest thing on the street.

2008 Sep 12 10:36 AM

[Lex Luz:]

Interesting article - thanks for the side-by-side comparison.

Alas, this article further deepens my belief that after so many decades of choosing between the lesser of two evils, finally this time around we have a REAL choice. Unfortunately, it's the choice between disaster and calamity.

Obama's plan strikes me as disastrous; an invitation to extraordinary waste and corruption and a continued rapid rise in prices for healthcare based on the introduction of a bloated bureaucracy and a "two-tier" medical insurance system that will gradually but inexorably suck more people into the morass of the publicly-funded system.

McCain's plan strikes me as utterly calamitous as it is tailor-made to relieve employers of the burden of providing a health insurance benefit. This will drive insurance premiums for individuals so far through the roof that a $5,000 tax credit will hardly start the motor toward recovery from the family's financial shock. The end result of this is that vastly more people will go without insurance and costs will rise farther, faster. Uninsured people get sicker faster and depend on emergency rooms - the highest-cost option available - for their primary care. They can't shoulder those bills, so guess who does? People carrying private insurance.

So, disaster on one hand, calamity on the other. Nice choice.

The REAL solution, in my view, is simply to eliminate health "insurance" (it isn't truly insurance anyway in the real sense of the term) altogether and let actual, honest free-market mechanisms drive innovation up and costs down, thereby expanding access and quality. Since that will never happen given where we are today, we need more compelling plans than either one of these two candidates is offering.

2008 Sep 12 10:42 AM

[Jason Rines...:]

"Obama wouldn’t seek to dismantle the current private health insurance industry. Rather, the government-funded plan would exist side by side with private plans."

Yeah, this worked so well with the GSE's for the American public.

My positions are in Consumer Healthcare. Specifically, I own a Consumer Healthcare Marketing company so I'll weigh in on this article/subject:

Democrats that controlled the House starting in 2006 hurt the Pharmaceutical industry sales. Period. That was because they are heavy handed. Instead of negotiating with big pharma for discount drugs to lower Medicare costs, they demanded it with no return value proposition. Of course big pharma gave them a firm NO.

Then it was about Democrats attacking Phycisian marketing ($14 B market) with a ton of new regulations. Then Democrat attorneys attacking relentlessly creating endless lawsuits.

Then threats and legislation on DTCA (Direct to Consumer Advertising $7 B industry and the one I am in and has grown 45% in three years).

Democrats have eased off of this poor behavior path this last year at least in regards to DTCA as consumer marketing empowers consumer choice.Democrat arguments were so weak and flimsy about DTCA it was becoming apparent it was just a big money grab and like energy big pharma does have some muscle to push around.

Big pharma is outsourcing it's clinical research overseas because of this hostile Democrat controlled House and environment. I do agree with some of the stricter regulation on Physician Marketing, it was beginning to hurt consumers by being overprescribed and dangerous to consumers and there was little if no choice by consumers.

Medical Device companies (our second customer segment focus)have had little effects from politics in general but would do better under Democrats and nationalized healthcare, as Medicare would cover more devices for individuals.

Big pharma would do far better with Republicans at the helm and would negotiate discount drugs on existing pattents with big pharma and big pharma gets leeway on DTCA and acquires many new patients.

I am in favor of the McCain plan in terms of tax incentives and making health insurance individual responsibility. As a business owner, health insurance drives so much of employee poor behavior and attitudes it has gotten out of control. It also hurts small and medium sized companies that wish to attract management and other employee talent because if you don't offer full coverage for family, you don't get the talent. An employer looked at as God in some respects because of health insurance is not good at all.

2008 Sep 12 10:47 AM

[steveballmer:]

Both are idiots, only Obey is a socialist

2008 Sep 12 12:42 PM

[Jason Rines...:]

I agree Steve, voting Ron Paul. By the time 2012 rolls around the American public will be so destitute they may just get off the couch and spend time figuring out which politician can serve them best vs. a choice of a lesser of two evils. The system makes it somewhat unfair as well because of media coverage and airtime. Part of the plan I am working on addresses this for what I expect to be voter revolt in 2012. But I am doing what I can as I can. Hopefully I can connect some other guys and we'll get it done together. Cheers.

2008 Sep 12 01:22 PM

[Allen168:]

I disagree with a lot of what you said. Obama's plan would help hospitals who lose billions of dollar a year in bad debt expense from uninsured patients. Under Obama's plan, all children would be required to receive coverage under the SCHIP. A McCain victory will boost the pharmaceutical index while an Obama victory will boost Biotechnology, PBM's and generics companies.

Both campaigns should help Healthcare IT companies like Cerner, Allscripts, and Phase Forward. However, because oil and the economy are such huge problems, healthcare policy reform should remain in the back seat for the nearterm.

2008 Sep 12 08:57 PM

[Steven Hansen:]

the real winner will be the congressman to whom the health care lobbyist will provide a prostitute. get real here. the president has no power or influence over health care legislation.

2008 Sep 13 05:24 AM

[tginomorebush:]

Who is better for healthcare investors? Who cares? The question should be ........

Who is better for The United States of America and The World?

2008 Sep 13 09:12 AM

[jimocarroll:]

Nothing is more expensive than free health care.

I have seen way too many "families" where the "parents" can afford 2 packs per day each of cigarettes to smoke in the same room as their kids, but "cannot afford" health insurance.

2008 Sep 13 09:52 AM

[Bonnie:]

By the way...the Democrats only gained the majority in the Senate and Congress in NOVEMBER OF 2007!!! LESS THAN A YEAR AGO.... NOT 2006!!!

I can't believe the comments below!!! Obviously those who comment negatively...weren't commenting on the Bush Administration sucking dry all of the Trust Funds.

Yes, all of the money that all of us have been forced to pay out of our paychecks and all of the money taken out for other specific purposes in our behalf awaiting our retirement...is nearly gone!!! Remember the "Baby-Boomer" Generation was the largest ever in American History. All of us have been paying into the Social Security Trust Fund since we started working our part-time jobs at 14 years old...now getting ready to retire...THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS ROBBED US BLIND!!!

OVER $5.2 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS BEEN SIPHONED OUT OF THE TRUST FUNDS SINCE BUSH TOOK OVER IN 2000!!! IN PARTICULAR...OVER $1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS STOLEN FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND ALONE!!! ADDITIONALLY, OTHER TRUST FUNDS, INCLUDING THE MILITARY RETIREMENT TRUST FUND, THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT TRUST FUND, THE RAILROAD RETIREMENT TRUST FUND, AND THE AMERICAN INDIAN TRUST FUNDS AND MANY OTHERS...HAVE BEEN HIT AS WELL!!! MIND YOU, THERE IS NO PLAN TO PAY IT BACK AND NO WAY TO PAY IT ALL BACK!!!

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ALSO BORROWED BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM 12 FOREIGN COUNTRIES!!! THE TOP THREE ARE JAPAN (OVER $600 BILLION DOLLARS), COMMUNIST CHINA (OVER $300 BILLION DOLLARS), THE UNITED KINGDOM (U.K.), (OVER $200 BILLION DOLLARS) AND NINE (9) MORE COUNTRIES. ALL OF THESE LOANS ARE BACKED BY HARD AMERICAN ASSETS...LIKE U.S. TREASURY BONDS!!! CAN YOU IMAGINE THE INTEREST RATES ON THEM...AND YOUR GREAT, GREAT, GREAT GRANDCHILDREN...MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH PAYING OFF THESE DEBTS!!!

YES, ANYONE WHO INHERITS THIS AND THE MANY OTHER HORRIFIC BLUNDERS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION...WILL HAVE HELL TO PAY IN ORDER TO GET THIS COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK...TO SOME SEMBLANCE OF NORMALCY!!!

HOWEVER, AFTER GIVING TAX INCENTIVES FOR CORPORATIONS TO GO ABROAD AND "GLOBALIZE", WHEREBY MOST CORPORATIONS PAY NO TAXES AT ALL INCLUDING MOST FOREIGN OWNED CORPORATIONS FUNCTIONING IN THE U.S., AND SHIPPING OFF MILLIONS OF JOBS OVERSEAS...AND CONTAMINATING THE U.S. WITH MERCURY, LEAD, AND MANY OTHER PRODUCTS AND BI-PRODUCTS OF THE FEW INDUSTRIES THAT ARE STILL HERE...AND WITH THE BABY-BOOMER GENERATION NOW STARTING TO RETIRE...WITH LOST INCOMES IN STOCKS, THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES, THE LOST PENSIONS WHEN COMPANIES LEFT OR CHANGED THEIR MINDS AFTER LIFE-LONG EMPLOYEES RETIRED, WE NEED A HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM OF SOME KIND...AND OBAMA'S, AFTER DOING THE FIGURING, IS THE BEST!!!

OF COURSE, THE VOICES THAT I HEAR IN THIS COMMENT SECTION...COULD CARE LESS...THEY ARE JUST WORRIED ABOUT SAVING THEIR BOTTOMS NOW...BECAUSE THEY HAVE MANY YEARS LEFT TO SURVIVE THIS MESS!!!

BUT THESE ARE YOUR PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS THAT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOOK ADVANTAGE OF...AND THEY NEED THE BEST CARE POSSIBLE. DO YOU THINK THAT THE DOCTORS ARE GOING TO LOWER THEIR RATES...WHEN THEIR STOCK PORTFOLIOS ARE SUFFERING???

DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR PARENTS ARE GOING TO PULL THE MONEY OUT OF THEIR BOTTOMS...OR GROW IT ON A TREE IN THE BACK YARD!!! THEY PUT YOU THROUGH SCHOOL, THEY HELPED YOU THROUGH ALL OF YOUR TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS...LOANED YOU MONEY, KISSED YOUR BOTTOMS MOST OF YOUR LIVES...STOP FOOLING YOURSELVES AND SUPPORT SOMEONE WHO REALLY WANTS TO TURN THIS COUNTRY AROUND...NOT SOMEONE WHO IS PANDERING TO ALL OF THE SPECIAL INTERESTS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION'S LEFT OVERS!!!

WE NEED SOMEONE WHO IS "WITH IT", NOT SOME OLD FOGGY, WHO DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE INTERNET...WE NEED SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE IN REALITY...IN REAL TIME...AND WILL FIGHT TO BRING US ALL BACK...NOT JUST THE WEALTHY AND THE CORPORATIONS...AND DISGUISE IT AS "THINKING OF ALL OF US"!!! TOO OLD AND TOO PRETTY...DOESN'T MAKE IT IN THE REAL WORLD!!! OBAMA AND BIDEN HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND FOR ALL, ALL, ALL OF US!!! NOT JUST THEIR BUDDIES!!! THIS ISN'T A "MISS AMERICA" PAGEANT OR THE BAR AT THE "VFW LODGE"...THIS IS MODERN DAY PROBLEMS...THAT NEED MODERN DAY SOLUTIONS BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALL OF THEIR FACULTIES ABOUT THEM...NOT SOMETHING THAT "HANDLERS" WILL DEAL WITH!!!

MY VETERAN GRANDFATHER IS TOSSING IN HIS GRAVE. AN IMMIGRANT FROM ITALY...FOUGHT IN WORLD WAR I...STOOD UP TO IDIOTS WHO PORTRAYED THEMSELVES AS "FOR THE PEOPLE" AND WERE "FOR THE RICH"!!!

GET REAL!!! OUR LIVES AND FINANCIAL STABILITY COUNT THIS TIME...BIG TIME...NO CUTE STORIES...OR WAR STORIES ARE GOING TO CHANGE WHERE WE ARE TODAY!!! ONLY INTELLIGENT AND HONEST MEN....BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN ARE HONEST AND INTELLIGENT MEN...WHO WILL EVEN WORK FOR THE POOR (WHERE MOST OF US ARE NOW), THE MIDDLE-CLASS (IF ANY EXIST ANYMORE), AND THE WEALTHY (WHO HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR TAX LOOPHOLES AND DO THEIR FAIR SHARE TO BRING AMERICA BACK!!!). THEY WILL WORK FOR THE SICK, THE HEALTHY, THE MENTALLY ILL AND THE SANE!!!

STOP BEING SUCH NARCISSISTS AND SOCIOPATHS AND REMEMBER....WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER...AND WE NEED SOMEONE WHO WILL WORK FOR ALL OF US....TOGETHER!!!!
UNITED WE STAND...DIVIDED WE FALL!!! AND WE ARE ALMOST DEAD!!! WE BETTER GET SOMEONE WHO HAS SOME LIFE LEFT IN THEM...AND UNDERSTANDS THE REALITY OF WHAT HAS REALLY HAPPENED IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS...AND THE REALITY THAT WE ALL HAVE TO FACE EVERYDAY OF OUR LIVES!!!

2008 Sep 13 10:14 AM

[Veteran:]

Bonnie

RIGHT ON!

Rome is burning and we trying to figure out whether to invest in firefighting equipment, emergency service companies or burn medicine manufacturers.
"Nero fiddling while Rome burns" seem to be a fitting analogy.
We have an administration and a party of reckless "pyromaniacs" who are either unaware of their condition or feel that there is benefit in the destruction they are creating.
Fundamental change is required.
When Clinton was running against Bush the Elder, the same nonsense about him bringing in s Socialist agenda was heralded. Today, few would disagree that it was 8 of the best years for Americans and American industry, including investment opportunities.
The Republican fear mongers have learned their lessons well. It is sickening yet effective.

2008 Sep 13 10:53 AM

[RJC:]

Bonnie, The Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007 (election was in November 2006). They have had control for almost two years.

Starting your comment with a false statement coincides with the rest of your diatribe of Democrat Party talking points.

I wish people would be more objective and open minded to all sides, which would require doing one's homework (as in investing) and not repeating what one hears on blogs and the media outlets that treat blog information as news.

2008 Sep 13 12:38 PM

[searcher:]

Republican - Libertarian - Democrat - Progressive. Most of these labels, when the printing can be read, are in serious violation of the truth in advertising law. Thank goodness.

2008 Sep 13 01:31 PM

[steveballmer:]

We need less government intervention not more people!

2008 Sep 13 01:49 PM

[Jake2:]

Health Care is a hot button topic obviously, and not many cool heads are in evidence here. My recommendation is to ignore all commentators. Reader, pass by. Make up your own mind and let all "philosophers" here continue to jabber at one another.

2008 Sep 13 03:11 PM

[NEH:]

Lex Luz - I'm with you - let's get rid of ALL the insurance companies - Americans want to be protected from scraping their knees. Insurance companies have seeped into every part of our life. They reward the weak and expect you and me to pay for it. Responsible, hard-working, honest americans should not be paying for the failures of irresponsible and reckless persons. Think how much money you'd have in your pocket if you didn't pay insurance premiums and what that would contribute to the overall economy. It will never happen of course, the lawyers in this country would fight it to the death.

I think states should be allowed the liberty and resources to design public programs for the uninsured - tax dollars would pay for them. A federally administered system would be an unbelievable disaster.

2008 Sep 13 06:26 PM

[Brion:]

RJC,

Bonnie's "diatribe of Democrat Party talking points" is largely correct, and singling out a date to dispute in a multiple paragraph post along with dismissing her with a glib and browbeating remark only serves to make her point.

By admonishing her to "doing one's homework" suggests you've done yours, how conveniently self-serving of you. Bonnie's post clearly reflects hers and many others concern for the serious issues we face in these times, but our problems certainly won't be solved by the likes of you, your snarky attitude, or your transparent posturing to appear "objective and open minded to all sides" – you are just part of the problem.

I wouldn't have even read Bonnie's zealous comment, had I not noticed your faux wisdom.

2008 Sep 13 10:22 PM

[Thomas Smic...:]

Good article. May I insert that it matters not what the health care plan is if the President has neither the will, courage or experience to defend the country and our vital national interests.

2008 Sep 14 12:36 PM

[WEBISKING:]

Higher capital gains and marginal rates =lower tax receipts

2008 Sep 14 12:44 PM

[AmericanAgent:]

Under Obama's the government would finance............wro... Don Dion. Wrong, more specifically:

We, individual taxpayers, would finance Obama's health care plan.

My view is not a Republican/Democrat issue, it is an issue of public awarness.

"Government" is not the elected officials and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. or elsewhere in our country. It is us, the people, the taxpayers.

We foot the bill.

Whether you are a blog or journalist, write "government" financing stories as it is: We, individual taxpayers, pay.

2008 Sep 14 03:54 PM

[TinyTim:]

From an investment standpoint, the risk in markets like this is enough to scare me away. The fickleness of politicians is not a risk I care to take on.

For all the health care hypocrites out there, since when does health care have to be employer sponsored?
Since 1943, when the IRS made insurance premiums deductible for corporations to aid in the war effort. I'm sick of hearing employers complain about the costs when they enjoy the benefit of virtually locking in employment. How many times have you heard- the job sucks, but I need the benefits?
Companies want it both ways-keep employees roped in, but don't make it too costly. Tying health care to employment is a travesty.

Want to fix health care in this country? Real simple, just drop the corporate tax benefit, eliminate barriers to entry for PA's & NP's by the AMA union and let the markets sort it out.

The first casualty would be the insurance companies. These middlemen just add a huge cost layer anyway with the bureaucracy and paperwork. You need insurance to replace a fender and get a paint job; do you need it for an oil change and tune-up?

The next casualty would be the pill pusher doctors who don't provide any value other than being able to lay hands on capital by virtue of their degree to set up an office to deal with the paperwork. Internet pharmacies and nighthawks in India are already pressing them.
Let the skilled surgeons and ER docs rise to the top. The malpractice lawyers will be circling the rest.

2008 Sep 15 12:43 AM

[Pfloyd234:]

McCain will be much better for this country for a lot of reasons!!!

2008 Sep 15 01:40 AM

[Brion:]

Today's market meltdown pretty much sums up why I won't be voting the Republican ticket this year.

You can bet there are numerous SL investors/employees right now who will agree.

2008 Sep 15 02:06 PM

[KeepYourChange:]

Bonnie...

Rome was burning a long time ago...and it was perpetuated by liberal reformist agendas. If you think the Clinton years and the Democratic-led Congress was such a glorious time...drop the talking points and do some research. I'm sick of hearing about how the world is falling apart and why we won't just all collectively throw government dollars at the latest crisis. The financial crisis for example - look into how Clinton enabled/mandated Fannie & Freddie to make loans to people who couldn't afford them, for the sake of a "social mandate" that more low-income families and minorities should own homes (actually, in my opinion, it was so he could jumpstart the gravy train for all his Dem buddies in the housing and mortgage markets). See how Clinton and the Democratic Congress changed the rules so that Fannie and Freddie could gorge themselves to the gills on securitized mortgages from these sub-prime markets. Check out the story of Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie who was appointed by Clinton and who made out with $90mm in salary and stock from his stint at Fannie...and who was later let off the hook (through a settlement) when he was found cooking the books and overseeing one of the biggest accounting frauds in our history. Instead of jail, Raines is now one of Obama's economic advisors!!! Find out who received the brunt of his donation $$$$$$: the Democrats. I don't understand why the MSM does not blow the lid off of this story!!! All they can do is bash Bush - who, by the way, TRIED TO ENACT SWEEPING REFORMS to the Clinton Administration-created mortgage/banking mess as demonstrated by this article in the now off-the-deep-end NYT: query.nytimes.com/gst/...="barney+frank"&st...

This is what happens when you have a bunch of people who do not understand how the principals of risk/reward and supply/demand work making up rules for "the good of the people".

If Senator Obama becomes president, it won't be long before the healthcare gravy train starts up because he wants to apply the same flawed principals...alllllll aboard.

Not me. He can keep his change.

2008 Sep 30 10:32 AM

[Ames Tiedeman:]

Health care cost will bankrupt the nation so what does it really matter?

2008 Nov 02 03:41 PM